eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Swedish Company Endorses HotCat Report

May 23, 2013

One of the bodies funding the HotCat report – the Swedish Energy Research Organization, Elforsk – has issued a statement on its website, lending their name in a direct way to its credibility. This is a potentially significant development as it weakens the slurs trying to paint the testers as a small band of incompetents, dupes or fraudsters dancing to Rossi’s tune. While associating their name with the report, they fall short of ratifying it (I would expect nothing more). Even so, they obviously take it seriously and by extension, its authors. Attacking Levi et al seems to be a common theme among many commenters on various tech and scientific blogs. With luck, this will help steer us away from such facile arguments and concentrate on the paper itself.

The following is Google’s interpretation:

Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst – E-cat

Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.

The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk.

Download the report here


[With thanks to commenter TheGhostofOtto1923 on PhyOrg]

This is the Company’s description of itself [Much more here:

Development through cooperation

Cooperation between electricity companies, manufacturing companies and public authorities is important for work within Elforsk. There are 800 places on Elforsk’s advisory and decision-making bodies. These places are occupied by experts from electricity companies, manufacturing industries, public authorities and other interested parties. Programme teams within Elforsk draw up the strategic approach for the programme area in question. New R&D programmes are launched when interested parties decide on funding based on offers from Elforsk. Under the agreed programme, the interested parties then decide how funding should be employed for specific activities during the programme. A key task for Elforsk’s staff is to ensure that decisions are implemented in time and with the required quality. Another, equally important task is, together with interested parties, to formulate new research programmes and implement the results from these so that they are of benefit. This approach creates effective cooperation between business and industry, society and the academic community.


Posted by on May 23, 2013. Filed under Business,Drama,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

75 Responses to Swedish Company Endorses HotCat Report

  1. dsm

    May 23, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    But lets get very real. Would it not have been better if a reputable scientific institute published for peer review their report on tests ‘they’ conducted and that prove new science !.
    I guess not.
    The problem with endorsements like this one is we don’t have a clear picture on their motives for endorsing tests that were *not* conducted by a true independent 3rd party.
    This technology is not just *some* new idea – it is a world changing advance that *must* be proven / evaluated by accepted science and industry else where do we draw the line between past & future pseudo science ?
    People can not just keep wishing this new energy is true. It must be proven beyond doubt that it is true then when that is done, galvanize the world to exploit it for man kind. We must always be 100% that it is not mankind being exploited by a false or half-baked advance.

    • Methusela

      May 23, 2013 at 10:13 pm

      Hey DSM,

      Still keeping the faith? 😉

      Pssh, who cares, Elforsk has allocated around 230,000 euros each year, for the next three years for further investigations according to ECW.

      Should be interesting to see what happens next…

      • dsm

        May 23, 2013 at 10:43 pm

        You know full well what I am saying is plain and simple common sense.

        We could take this very conversation back 2 years & you could be saying “well lets see what happens in the next couple of years ?”.
        Also like you, I would *love* for Andrea Rossi to show he really did invent the greatest technological advance since fire. True ‘free energy’ would be just that and would transform mankind into gods – what we could achieve in the next 50 years with such power would IMHO put past 10,000 years progress in the shade.
        There should be no illusions about this !.

        But, “What goes around comes around”

        • Anonymole

          May 24, 2013 at 3:51 am

          If this were a soap opera Rossi would have won an Emmy by now. Not to mention all the supporting cast; the snakes and villains, the devout and faithful. And myriad “extras” all awaiting in the wings, aching for a sign that the network won’t cancel their favorite show.

      • John Milstone

        May 25, 2013 at 9:57 am

        Before you celebrate too much, you should look up the history of “Madison Priest” a con man who claimed in the early 1990s to have invented a new video compression process that would allow sending hi-def video over an ordinary analog modem in real-time.

        He managed to con almost $10 million from companies including Intel and General Dynamics, even though the only “invention” was running a hidden half-mile long coax cable between his two “laboratories”.

        Like Rossi, he only allowed demos in his facilities, which had secret coax cable hidden in the electrical outlets and power strips.

        • Methusela

          May 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm


          Man, you are SO boring!

        • NJT

          May 26, 2013 at 12:15 am

          Now that is a REAL stretch Milstone! You are so much smarter than these imminent scientists who oversaw and did the testing to arrive at this conclusion? I’m sure you can do better than that?

  2. John A

    May 23, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    I too am trying to keep the faith. The last report was promising in the details of the readings and the length of the test. Rossi is obtuse, evasive and secretive. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because I am thinking he has not found a way to secure the rights to something so simple. How do you make money on something that will be copied by many as soon as they are put on the market in numbers? The alternate explanation is he is a scammer. I hope for the former as the world really needs this.

    • Shane D.

      May 23, 2013 at 11:43 pm

      If a scammer like you say then his methods may be marketable. Melting a steel cylinder with ordinary electrical wiring, while not even present in the room, while the cylinder is being observed by 7 scientists and engineers is quite a feat in itself.

      There could be some commercial value to his tricks. If not that he may do well as a majician.

      So either way it looks like Rossi has positioned himself to make money.

      • Al Potenza

        May 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm

        “Melting a steel cylinder with ordinary electrical wiring, while not even present in the room, while the cylinder is being observed by 7 scientists and engineers is quite a feat in itself. “

        How is that a feat? It just requires a switch somewhere behind the wall socket in another room.

      • RonB

        May 24, 2013 at 9:15 pm

        Did the report say that thickness of the steel jacket? If it were very thick at all it would take quite a bit of power for a pretty long time to get it to melt just setting in free air like it was. I wonder if they were watching it when it got so hot that it melted. Did they try to shut it down and it just kept getting hotter and hotter?
        I think those folks were pretty impressed. (trick or not)

    • Anon2014

      May 24, 2013 at 12:50 am

      But he could file for patent. Even if he invented a new kind of fire, he would own the rights for 20 years.

      This report is unfortunately not professionally written and has about the same number of unanswered questions as the steam tests two years ago. It was also not independent as there can be little doubt that Levi is Rossi’s friend.

      Let’s go it again with professional management and abolish communications through JONP. Like DSM I hope for this breakthrough, but the way it is being promoted just sucks.

      • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

        May 24, 2013 at 6:10 am

        Elforsk co-financed the test not to satisfy you and me, but to satisfy their own curiosity. Sweden is a rich country but poor in energy. Elforsk’s statement shows they are satisfied and amazed with their preliminary finding. They plan to finance a longer 6 month investigation. We are but mere bystanders to a possible unfolding of a major revolution in human history. If we don’t like Elforsk’s & Rossi’s methods, then tough thermocouples.

        • dsm

          May 24, 2013 at 8:33 am

          Do you believe that Andrea Rossi has been going about this in a open sincere and professional manner “True ‘free energy’ would be just that and would transform mankind into gods – what we could achieve in the next 50 years with such power would IMHO put past 10,000 years progress in the shade.”

          I just don’t see his claims, his past & current antics and his ‘behind the scenes’ fund raising by selling dirt cheap country agencies, as fitting the bill in any way, shape or form.
          But we all have to call it as we see it and that in itself exacerbates the differences in our own world experience.
          Some prefer to ignore the oddities (his lies, his selling off global country-by-country cheap agencies) and focus on the dream “world shattering free energy” – but that makes us the interesting mix of humanity that we are.
          It boils down to ‘do I chase the dream or deal with the ugly side that is there and not that hard to see’.

          • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

            May 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Rossi owes us nothing. We owe him nothing. There have been millions of inventors but Rossi is the 1st to publish a peek at his stream of consciousness. We can take it or leave it. When we think out loud and mumble to ourselves, we may reverse our thoughts many times. We are eavesdropping on his thought process. I’m not a scientist and have never been close to one, but I suspect that inventors are a different breed.

            One big positive, he has introduced the subject to thousands. The technology may be suppressed, but not successfully so. The genie is out of the bottle.

          • Ivy Matt

            May 25, 2013 at 7:31 am

            There have been millions of inventors but Rossi is the 1st to publish a peek at his stream of consciousness.

            We are eavesdropping on his thought process.

            Quoted for amusement.

    • Lcd

      May 25, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Bingo John A.

      I’m dealing with similar patent issues on software. It is extremely hard to patent software because once you change a few lines of code you have a new patent.

      For software it’s just better to deliver the exe code along with a license. It provides better protection.

      I don’t know if it is applicable here though

  3. Al Potenza

    May 23, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    The funded a really crummy study. They should be embarrassed. Maybe they will do it correctly next time but in that case, Rossi will find some excuse not to proceed.

    • Methusela

      May 23, 2013 at 10:46 pm


  4. Lcd

    May 24, 2013 at 3:25 am

    I don’t understand the people who aren’t impressed by the report. Lets see what history says about this test in a few years.

    I thought the experiments were great. Shows how hard, not how simple calorimetry can be. I thought the correct use of the IR camera was novel and clutter free, an important point when trying to convince people your not hiding something. We all know how the heat exchanger with flow calorimetry can be criticized even with the best intentions.

    The use of the dummy cat heated up to a similar temp and measured for total power output was actually quite brilliant, a good calibration point, and excellent control experiment.

    Their conservative estimates on output power, weight and volume are logical and safe, and even then its still a remarkable outcome. Excellent job.

    There is always room for improvement of course, but its pretty darn convincing.
    I think short of a “hidden” wire and control mechanism, it’s solid.

    I want to hear more about the things they did to prevent mistakes and check for fraud that maybe they didn’t put in the report, etc from the testers.

    I continue to be amazed by the lack of radiation, it’s like having your cake and eating it too.

    I’m looking forward to more studies in the short term and a complete reneissance in physics for the long term.

  5. Dr Rudolphe Camsonne, PhD

    May 24, 2013 at 3:52 am

    I d’nt care of theory or science. What I like is to
    go ahead. For example to warm inhabitants as
    previewed of Stockholm this next winter, or better
    to bring Hot Water and/or Air Conditioners for
    Stockhol’s Hostellery industry this summer.

  6. Dr Rudolphe Camsonne, PhD

    May 24, 2013 at 4:03 am

    I’d like to be transparent and useful as possible and put
    my photo as my avatar, how to do for this ?

  7. spacegoat

    May 24, 2013 at 4:56 am

    “I think short of a “hidden” wire and control mechanism, it’s solid.”

    Plenty of critique around on this subject

    Ergo – it is not solid, but of course we all hope it is.

    What we have is another completely inconclusive Rossi event. We are no father on than 2 years ago.

    The fact that the Elforsk CEO is putting up 230K eur to “study” (1 consultant headcount for 1 year) makes not one jot of difference to the scientific evidence. CEO’s are usually allowed to follow their whim if it is not too costly.

  8. Dale G. Basgall

    May 24, 2013 at 7:12 am

    LENR is building steam, the company sent a good message of cooperation and the support of Google in their statement makes the research more viable to invest in.

    • RonB

      May 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm

      LENR is building steam
      Don’t say steam or you’ll get the chickens to clucking again!

  9. jfab

    May 24, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    If the input power is used only to heat the resistors (as we’re being told by Rossi et al.), then what is the need of a special waveform? How much a special waveform would affect the way a resistor heats? My uneducated guess is that it won’t change much.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      May 24, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      It is possible the “waveform” they specify is their interpretation of the 2d sine “wave” on the scope, and that the waveform is generated by selecting a point on the sine wave to initialize a magnetically induced pulse as well as said current flow.

      The waveforms working in synchronization developing the result most likely could be the determining factor of efficiency with the hot cat end result of thermal energy.

      • jfab

        May 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm

        Since the Hot Cat is ultimately meant the run on self-sustaining “heat-based” off-the-grid mode, I don’t think any magnetic pulse should be required, as it would not be possible in such self-sustaning mode (though I might be wrong on that, I’m no engineer).

      • John Milstone

        May 25, 2013 at 9:31 am

        Dale G. Basgall said:

        initialize a magnetically induced pulse

        It’s probably worth noting that Nickel has a Curie Temperature (the temperature at which it loses its magnetic property) of about 350 C.

        So the Nickel in this device would not have been magnetic at operating temperature.

    • Anonymole

      May 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm

      I was under the impression that Brillouin used a microcontroller to issue a waveform into the LENR core they were testing. And it was this circuitry that was their special sauce. How they accomplished this pulsing of energy into the core, and whether they were powering resistors I do not know. Maybe Rossi decided to use the same technique.

    • RonB

      May 24, 2013 at 9:05 pm

      I suspect the waveform is just a simple cycle dropping scheme and they all think that is soooo clever. *rolling eyes*

  10. MaxS

    May 24, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    • Ransompw

      May 24, 2013 at 4:26 pm

      It is hard for someone with any kind of an open mind to read his drivel. His writing reminds me of Krivit, I wonder if the two are connected.

      • Al Potenza

        May 24, 2013 at 5:40 pm

        You may want to try reading Krivit more carefully, perhaps with an expert scientist explaining to you what he wrote. He virtually proved that Rossi lies all the time and is basically a crook.

        • Methusela

          May 24, 2013 at 7:29 pm


        • RonB

          May 24, 2013 at 9:03 pm

          “expert scientist”.. sheesh — Would it say that on a business card or what?

  11. ShaunR

    May 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Hello All,

    I haven’t posted here before, but I’m an electrical engineer and I have some thoughts to offer:

    I think Mr Motl is wrong.
    If you assume that the emissivity is 0.2, then the measured temperatures would all be
    scaled by a factor of 1.49, so the average figure of temperature would be more like
    1060K, and the calculated output power would be more like 7400W.
    This is why emissivity=1 is conservative.

    Personally I don’t see anything seriously wrong with the output power estimate given in the paper.
    The estimate is conservative, but since the input power is only 360W, and the output power
    is so much higher than that, the output power doesn’t need to be calculated very accurately
    to prove the point. A bottom-end estimate is fine.

    But is the input power really 360W?

    They hardly mention the characteristics of the electrical supply to the rig.
    They seem to assume that their power analyser will take care of all that for them.
    The critical thing is the frequency response of the analyser and the current clamps.
    Typical current clamps seem to have no response to frequencies above a few kiloHertz.
    Current clamps capable of working at high frequencies exist, but they would need to be connected
    to a spectrum analyser or an oscilloscope, not a power analyser.
    I also looked at the spec of the power analyser, which seems not to respond to transients
    shorter than 16 microseconds.

    An electrical engineer would have mentioned these things in the paper because they can be important.
    There have been several instances of alleged free energy devices which were supposed to output more
    power than was input, where it turned out that the apparent power gain was due to inadequate measurement
    of high frequency electrical power.

    I’m pretty sure that I could rig this demo to supply 2kW to the heaters, while ensuring that
    the power analyser only indicated 360W, provided the current clamps were of the typical type.

    Note that to ensure that the high frequencies didn’t show up on the voltage input of the
    analyser, I would need the supply to have as low an impedance as possible, therefore a
    three phase supply with its heavy gauge cables would be helpful in faking the demo.
    I can’t think of any other reason to use a three phase supply to power a 360W load in fact.

    Ordinarily, a length of 0.5mm² flex connected to a single phase 220V supply would be sufficient
    to power a 360W heater!

    Note also that frequencies high enough to not show up on that power analyser would probably also
    not be detected by a mechanical electric meter in the building where this test was done.
    Therefore this report could constitute evidence of power company fraud, in the event that
    Sr. Rossi hasn’t really discovered a new kind of physics.

    My conclusion is that the case for the hot cat is unproven.

    To prove that the hot cat is real, they will need to repeat this test, but this time have an
    electrical engineer with RF experience and appropriate test gear present.

    If we’re very lucky, Sr.Rossi’s local power company will go and organise that test for us 🙂


    • Stefan

      May 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm


      Great post!

      I’m not a electrical engineer but a scientist I find your argument about the effect (after following this debate) the most probable debunk argument. I cannot judge though because I found other experts in this field taking another stand e.g. look at the comment section in

      So for a non expert bystander it would be nice to have experts in this field blog with much more details about their arguments and supply links to this in discussions like this site.

      Have fun!

    • Robert Ellefson

      May 25, 2013 at 9:17 am

      Shaun, I highly encourage you to read the available documentation on the power analyzer they used before making assertions such as you have. I would provide a link, but I also want to encourage you to figure the model number out by re-reading the original paper, and make sure you capture all the detail they mention about how they used this instrument. Then, please come back and tell us if you still think you can construct a circuit to fool the meter such as you claim (2KW vs 360W).

      • AB

        May 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm

        Robert Ellefson, you seem to know a great deal on the topic of power analyzers, may I ask what your credentials are?

        • Robert Ellefson

          May 25, 2013 at 11:26 pm

          I have a degree in computer engineering, which provided valuable analytic foundations, but most importantly I have decades of experience working for top-tier technology companies as a hardware design engineer with leading-edge technologies. I’ve been responsible for designing and debugging dozens of printed circuit boards, FPGAs, ASICs, and associated system-level products over the last 25 years. Most importantly, I’ve spent countless hours burning the midnight oil deep in the bowels of massive laboratory facilities of every related discipline (EMI, environmental chambers, HALT, etc) learning hard lessons based on the implications of actual measured results, regardless of the current theory as to what the measurement should/must/will be. I simultaneously served as the engineering lab manager for several of the teams I worked with, and was in charge of evaluating, specifying and purchasing millions of dollars worth of high-end electronic laboratory equipment for my labs. In addition, I worked with dozens of other corporate compliance testing labs during various phases of product qualification cycles, including what must be billions of dollars worth of lab equipment of nearly every variety pertinent to electronic product test and qualification. So, I have exposere to a wide variety of laboratory instrumentation, and experience evaluating the capabilities of instruments and how that impact the conclusions that can be drawn from them, and then using those instruments to urgently solve challenging problems while burning large amounts of money that my corporate overlords never wanted to spend in the first place.

          I have no specific recollection of having used a three-phase power analyzer of this type in my life. I do not claim to be an expert on the behavior of this model of analyzer. I do claim to understand the essential mechanisms of how they operate, and what the implications of the manufacturer’s claimed functionality are.

          More pertinent to this discussion is not the exact details of a specific meter’s capabilities, but rather the basic mechanism as to how the instrument operates, and what an actual waveform would need to look like in order to fool it to such an extent as to falsify this paper’s conclusions. Keep in mind, since this is an analytic instrument, it is not reporting simple sensor readings; rather, the most important function this instrument is sold to perfom is the time-series analysis it continually computes as it watches the dynamic loading and *waveform quality* of the power wires being monitored. Any slip-up of the “fake” waveform will be much more likely to register than it would with a simple multi-meter types of instantaneous measuring device.

      • Lcd

        May 25, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        Yes I agree Robert.

        First off Stefan you are right. Lobos is wrong about the ir camera and when he figures that out he is going to be quite embarrassed for a while.

        Second I have started noticing that a lot of people have not read the actual report but just the comments of others and skimmed the report…You can’t do that. A lot of overconfident people weighing in erroneously on the report.

        I think that hidden current sources would have been more likely if they stopped testing after December (along with other issues) but the march test gives much more confidence in their results.

        Would like to see more tests though

        • Methusela

          May 25, 2013 at 2:17 pm

          Exactly, the most vehement critics can’t understand the report.

          It’s very, very, amusing.

          • AB

            May 25, 2013 at 2:42 pm

            In order to maintain their beliefs, they must avoid reading it carefully or thinking their arguments of fraud through because that could end up challenging their beliefs.

      • ShaunR

        May 25, 2013 at 9:58 pm

        Hello Robert,

        I don’t have to fool the meter, I only have
        to fool the current clamps.


        • Shane D.

          May 26, 2013 at 1:45 am

          How Shaun?

          Yes, I know, we hear it all the time: you could do this and that… all in a sterile enviroment where you have free access to do whatever, with whatever electronic gadjets you please.

          But how about when you aren’t allowed in the building… much less the room? And a skilled team -more pedigreed (smarter) then you or I, is left in the testing room with their own equipment and order you out of the building?

          How do you go about carrying out all these electrical shenanigans from afar?

          How would you go about it?

        • Robert Ellefson

          May 26, 2013 at 2:56 am


          How do you propose this passing of 2KW undetected could occur, given the test apparatus as configured? Note that the setup is not only using current clamps, but simultaneous voltage probes as well. Hopefully you’ve reviewed the relevant documents; it seemed from your initial posting that you had not captured several salient details on your first reading.

          • Stefan

            May 26, 2013 at 5:10 pm


            From my schoolbook understanding of electricity,

            U = I * Z
            P = I * I * Z

            So make sure Z has a high value for low frequencies and a low value for a high harmonic frequency. Then push the high frequency with such I so that I * Z is low, but I * I * Z is high. In effect the high frequency will be just a small ripple on the voltage measurement and maybe not effect the quality evaluation much but transfer significant amount of energy.



          • ShaunR

            May 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm

            Hello Robert,

            Yes, because of the voltage drop across the
            supply impedance, the voltage readings could
            tell you a lot about what is going on,
            if a normal a.c. supply were being used, but
            because a three phase supply with its very
            low impedance is being used, the short
            pulses (and they would need to be very short)
            would just appear as a bit of noise on the
            power line.

            I’ve written a more detailed discussion of
            this which I will try to post further down
            the page.


  12. RonB

    May 24, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    If it were me I think I’d just like to stick a light bulb in series with the power in. When the power is off, the light is out. No guessing about ac or dc voltages. A watt meter along with the bulb would give you a good reading on the power.
    I wonder if the unit was already glowing red when the testing started. It would be of interest to know how fast it got hot.

    • Al Potenza

      May 24, 2013 at 5:41 pm

      Yikes. I take it you never heard of oscilloscopes?

      • RonB

        May 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm

        I have used a scope more times than most I’m sure but that would allow close inspection of the waveform whereas the light bulb would not and it would show all power going to the device.
        A 500W bulb would light pretty bright on 360W but the amount of power it would take to make that metal glow red would be way over 360W and the bulb would probably explode.

        • ShaunR

          May 24, 2013 at 9:35 pm

          Hi Ron,

          What voltage rating would this bulb of yours



          • RonB

            May 24, 2013 at 11:53 pm

            Since AR says the box will heat up with a single phase, I suppose 220V bulb would be fine. Just best wear shades ; )

          • John Milstone

            May 25, 2013 at 9:37 am

            It’s worth noting that the Swedish Standards Institute supposedly did just this when they tested Rossi’s gadget, and the results apparently showed much more power than a normal electric circuit should have been able to provide.

            Rossi claimed that the SIS was “incompetent”

            The SIS found no signs of excess energy from the E-Cat (according to Rossi’s partner) and supposedly left after only an hour or so after starting their work, suggesting that they found something that fundamentally invalidated their work.

          • Methusela

            May 25, 2013 at 11:47 am

            Ah, old John “half-a-story” Milstone has started spinning again.


          • Lcd

            May 25, 2013 at 2:11 pm

            What a pile of dung. That is not exactly what happened.

            John half truth Milstone strikes again.

          • ShaunR

            May 25, 2013 at 3:51 pm

            Hi Ron,

            If you connect a 220V 350W bulb in series with a 220V 350W heating element,
            and then connect this series arrangement across a 220V mains supply,
            you have created a voltage divider. The mains voltage will be
            split roughly half-and-half between the two loads,
            so both will dissipate about a quarter of their rated power i.e. less than 100W.
            You wouldn’t need any shades.

            It won’t be exactly 50:50 though because an incandescent bulb
            has a non-linear Volt-Ampere characteristic,
            but that’s academic since almost no heating equipment could be
            expected to work properly under the conditions which you have proposed.
            If the hot cat then failed to work, AR would be justified in blaming you.

            Your bulb concept is useful though.
            If you have a 220V heating element, and you want to know if its power
            dissipation is 350W or 2000W, then you could connect a 27W bulb rated
            for 3V a.c. in series with it.
            This would result in the heater voltage being reduced by up to 3V.
            All 220V electrical equipment is expected to work properly at 217V,
            so this is fine.
            If the bulb illuminates at full brightness, then the heater is dissipating 2000W.
            If the bulb glows less brightly, then the heater is dissipating less than 2000W.
            You would then have to do a separate test to determine the current
            needed to achieve the particular brightness seen, and from that you
            could calculate the power dissipated in the heater.
            This will effectively indicate power up to surprisingly high frequencies
            without requiring any expensive broad-band
            Watt meters as you more or less suggested.
            I don’t know if you can buy a 27W 3V bulb
            though, but that is also academic, since
            based on this report, it seems that AR
            doesn’t allow anything to be connected in
            series with his equipment.
            You can take spot voltage readings and attach current
            clamps, and that’s it.


        • Al Potenza

          May 25, 2013 at 6:52 pm

          Rossi is supposedly using a secret waveform on a resistive heater? What sense does that make? The power just averages out.

  13. JB

    May 24, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    Knowing the swedish funding system, I am quite sure that this funding is applied by the academic persons behind the report only in order to investigate further. Sadly, I am very sceptical wether Rossi will allow the type of investigations the would like.

    The most strange thing, that destroys the whole report is the lacking of a credible measurement of the input current. Specially when it was this that the engineer from SP found to be higher than what Rossi claimed. As long as Rossi says that the input current waveform is secret, the accurate input power can’t be measured by any third-party. And then it doesn’t matter what and how accurate you measure everything else.

    • Gringo

      May 24, 2013 at 8:02 pm

      “As long as Rossi says that the input current waveform is secret, the accurate input power can’t be measured by any third-party.”

      I guess you mean to speak in the past tense, about the recent test, because, as somebody suggested, somebody testing the ecat could provide a motor-generator to generate their own, guaranteed pure, AC power and feed that into Rossi’s black box which generates the secret ‘waveform’, which goes into the ecat.

      • JB

        May 25, 2013 at 10:08 am

        Yes, that is true. But if somebody can generate the secret waveform easily , it is not really secret…:)
        I more meant that as long Rossi doesn’t allow third-party to have full control, it proves nothing.

  14. Shane D.

    May 24, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    This Rossi answer from this morning should answer a few questions:

    Andrea Rossi
    May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM

    To the Readers:

    A friend of mine, Prof. of Electric Measurements , put me a question that I think is important to reproduce here:

    ” The measurement of the electric energy consumed by the resistance could have been affected by the fact that a particular wave has been produced that the instrument of measurement could have not been able to measure”.

    This question is important. The answer is: the measurement of the electric energy that has been consumed by the resistances has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES.

    Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form). AGAIN:


    Obviously the Examiners wanted to measure the energy consumed between the plug of the grid and the control panel exactly for this reason. This can be also found in the Report.

    Warm Regards,

    • RonB

      May 24, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      That’s why the control box was also included in the total energy consumed. Doh!

      I guess we’re back to IR lasers ; )

    • Al Potenza

      May 25, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      The problem with the input power measurement isn’t the PCE830. It’s the silly clamp on ammeters. Their frequency response doesn’t include DC or anything other than around 50 – 60 Hz. So all Rossi has to do to fool them is to superimpose power at other frequencies (or DC) somewhere in his input wiring. And notice that Rossi had full control of the input wiring and Levi had control of the instrumentation. Obviously, neither is to be trusted.

      • Shane D.

        May 25, 2013 at 7:33 pm

        OK Al, or whomever you really are (seen ECW?)… here is the scenario:

        You are Rossi. 7 scientists are about ready to test your hotcat. You are not allowed in the testing room for the 5 days it will be tested. You probably aren’t even allowed to be in the building. But if you are in the building you know they will watch you like a hawk, just so they can be assured you aren’t up to something.

        They put their ammeters and voltmeters on the only observable wiring (they checked believe me) coming into the hotcat BEFORE it goes into the hotcat. They see the wall socket, they see the hotcat, and in between are their instruments. Absolutely no other wires enter the machine . None.

        Now then, tell me how you are going to “superimpose power at other frequencies”?

        What type equipment are you going to use?

        How will you get your euipment into the testing room to have that effect?

        Or will your instrument do the job from a distance? How far… the other room?

        From that distance can the scientists see you or hear you? Also, does your equipment make noise?

        If yes to all, then how exactly will you tune that equipment to adjust the power readings going into the hotcat to a value you want?

        Let me take a guess on that last one: you actually fine tuned your equipment on the Nov test, but accidentally melted the steel and 2000c ceramic… right?

        Now, for the March run, the ecat was 65% SSM. How can you know when to activate your equipment to coincide with the other 35% of the time electricity was applied?

        Now let us say you have explained all that… bravo. Now, can you keep this up for the 4 day December run and stand there for 5 days of the March run?

        Standing all alone peeking into the room through a peephole that no one noticed, holding your bulky “power superimposer”, day after day. What if you have to go to the bathroom?

        Also, it has been said that Rossi was out of country during some of the testing. How do you oversee the fraud while gone?

        You and others are very good at throwing these things out; how about going a step further and walk us through how you’d do it?

      • RonB

        May 25, 2013 at 8:31 pm

        It must be that the power company is in on the scam too. They’re everywhere and they must be watching you right now.

  15. JKW

    May 25, 2013 at 8:26 am

    Paul, welcome back! But…the new development needs 95 years old Foccardi followers or local Upsalla football club member to impress on. Same old crap.
    I wish lawyers spent more time actually working on the laws to prevent Rossi-like con artists to flourish, than arguing in their favor…

  16. Thicket

    May 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Let’s just take the Swedes at their word and see where it takes us, shall we?

    They say the energy released is more than known chemical reactions. They also say that nuclear transformation is highly questionable.

    What does that leave us? What energy source could explain the heat released if it isn’t chemical or nuclear? Anyone?

    My vote goes to the energetic combining of the elements fraudium and scamium.

    • RonB

      May 25, 2013 at 6:19 pm

      fraudium and scamium.

      Ha! I wonder on what basis they make the claim for no transmutations? I don’t think they got to look at the innards, right?

    • Shane D.

      May 25, 2013 at 6:27 pm

      I doubt that, however, if you combine skepticium with thicketium you get a good dose of nothingbettertodowithmytimeexceptcriticizeium.

  17. ShaunR

    May 28, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    For anyone who is interested in how one could introduce high frequency current into the power leads without altering the test, here is my explanation:

    The report says that the heater power is controlled by TRIACs, and that these are contained in the secret box which we aren’t allowed to open.

    TRIACs by their nature can’t generate pulses at more than twice the supply frequency, though they generate plenty of harmonics.
    They would be useless for faking the test.

    But if we assume that the switching components in the secret box are actually MOSFETs (they easily could be – there is no evidence either way) then a possibility presents itself.

    If we arrange our MOSFETs to switch the supply on and off at a high frequency, say 100kHz, then part of the current in the supply cables would be at a low
    frequency where the analyser could see it, but the rest of the current would be at 100kHz and above, where the power analyser probably can’t see it,
    due to the limited frequency response of typical current clamps.

    The analyser CAN see voltage transients down to 16 microseconds – I will come to that.

    So now we are switching our heater cables at 100kHz. This means that we are using pulse width modulation. When you are using pulse width modulation you have to decide what duty cycle to use.

    I have done Fourier transform simulations which suggest that a duty cycle of 10% will result in the ratio of high frequency to low frequency power being about 4.5.
    This is the ratio which is needed to make the analyser read 360W while the load is really dissipating 2000W.

    This means that the peak current during the PWM “on” time will need to be 30A, i.e. we are switching 30A pulses of 1 microsecond duration on all three phases simultaneously.
    Which by the way would be too short for the power analyser to see, even if the current probes were introducing no attenuation at this frequency.

    I have checked prices on Farnell, and found that MOSFETs capable of switching at the necessary speed and current are available for less than £10 each.
    Two of those will be needed for each phase.

    It may be that even a three phase supply has too high an impedance at these frequencies, so you could fix that by connecting some big capacitors between the phases and neutral before the power analyser.
    They would need to be connected to the wiring somewhere close by. In fact there are some boxes which appear to be connected to the three phase supply in one of the photos.
    You could put some suitable capacitors inside those if you wanted to, or you could probably put them in an electrical cupboard somewhere.

    Switching such high currents in long wires will generate a lot of interference, so you might need to limit the power above the tenth harmonic of 1MHz, which you could do by adding three suitable inductors in the secret box.
    No matter what you do however, this set-up will always violate residential EMC emissions regulations,
    though somebody would probably have to report the interference before anything happened
    about that.

    All of this “adding capacitors and inductors” are standard techniques for adjusting the frequency response of an electrical system.

    Obviously if you wanted to run this hypothetical conjuring trick off a single phase supply, there would be 90A current pulses involved. Big current pulses like that
    through a length of light duty flex from a wall socket to the power analyser, i.e. a supply with a relatively high source impedance, would generate big transients which ought to get noticed.

    The bottom line is that there is no excuse for powering a 360W heater off a three phase supply capable of at least 20000W.

    Please don’t get too upset my debunking effort. I would prefer to be wrong, but I think that most of the possible angles have
    now been covered, so the reality of the situation should come to light quite soon.

    And that’s enough bloody typing I think.


    • Robert Ellefson

      May 29, 2013 at 2:59 am

      Shaun, thanks for considering my feelings in reaction to reading this, that is very kind of you. However, you need not concern yourself, for I am not the least bit upset, given the notion that you have covered most of the possible angles.

      Now that you have explained that all we need to do is send 30A, 1uS pulses down these power leads, would you please explain how these pulses can be timed to arrive exactly in-between sampling events, every time? Would this not require the fakery circuit to have a PLL lock on the analyzer’s sample clock? How does this happen? What about the propagation delay between the fakery circuit and the analyzer? How would the faker know the length of all the cables, and where the probes would be located? If the wrong phase correction is applied for cable compensation, would that risk revealing the fake?

      Also, do think that these 30A, 1uS pulses might not be perfectly terminated at the load, and therefore experience some reflection and “ringing” could occur? Or would you be entirely confident of no residual noise being present on the wires when the sampling clock strikes?

    • Shane D.

      May 29, 2013 at 3:45 am


      I think it would be easier to just invent an LENR+ device rather then to go through all that trouble just to fake one. 🙂

      Above me pay grade… Still though a fun read .